Stakeholders who don't understand your data are not going to be convinced by more of it. Data is evidence. It supports a claim, it does not make the claim on its own, and if the audience can't parse the evidence directly, piling on more of it just increases confusion while you feel increasingly confident.
What moves stakeholders is a story: a situation they recognize, a tension that puts something they care about at risk, and a resolution that only happens if they act. 'Right now we're shipping with a known defect rate. If nothing changes, we hit the returns spike we saw in Q3 again, and support gets buried right before the holiday push.' That is not a simplification of your data. It is the data, arranged so a non-technical person can hold the whole argument in their head at once.
Once the story lands, the data becomes useful again, as backup. Now they want to know the defect rate, because they already understand why it matters. You've reversed the usual order: instead of leading with numbers and hoping the significance is self-evident, you lead with the stakes and let the numbers answer the question they now have.
Nobody who doesn't understand your data is going to sign off because you explained it more thoroughly. They'll sign off because they understood what happens if they don't.
Storytelling turns data from an unread appendix into the evidence behind a story about consequences, which is what actually moves a decision.